The rivalries, qualitatively and quantitatively
Preparing for an exhibition match in Taiwan with Marat Safin, Andre Agassi was asked to compare the Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal rivalry with the one he enjoyed (sort of) with Pete Sampras. Speaking economically if not diplomatically, he flatly said of the present rivalry: "It's more compelling."
Upon hearing this, Sampras probably would roll his eyes and consider it just another example of the thinly-veiled bitterness he's always sensed emanating from his rival. After all, Sampras dominated in their most important meeting, winning six of their nine encounters at majors and four of those five that were finals. Sampras finished on top in the head-to-head, 20-14.
On the other hand, Roger and Rafa have both exceeded Agassi's Grand Slam title take (Agassi finished with eight, Nadal, just 24, already has nine, while Federer's 16 Grand Slam singles titles is the most accumulated by a man, ever, and two better than that of the former record-holder, Sampras). And Roger and Rafa have something that eluded Sampras, but not Agassi—a career Grand Slam.
Roger and Rafa will have to meet a dozen more times to post a rivalry as quantitatively deep as the one Agassi had with Sampras, and given today's depth-of-field, Nadal's injury issues, and Federer's age (29) it's possible that the "new guys" won't clash as often as the American graybeards.
Qualitatively, if Roger and Rafa continue on the present track, Rafa will dominate Roger even more thoroughly than Pete mastered Andre. Presently, Rafa holds a 14-8 edge, and given that he's five years younger than Roger, only the most rosy prognosticator would suggest that Federer will significantly close the gap.
One element, though, may work in Roger's favor. Ten of Rafa's wins came on clay (as opposed to only two for Roger), and as Federer turns 30 he's more likely to focus on the surfaces that best suit his game—hard, grass and indoor courts. Roger's big problem has been that he's been good enough to get opposite Rafa on clay, but not skilled enough to win a sufficiently large share of matches when he gets there. Should either man fall a few rungs on the rankings ladder in the near future, which is unlikely, they may continue to meet often on clay, which will probably work in Rafa's favor in the H2H, if not in the most important subset, the major tournament and major finals H2H.
The only conclusion I can draw is that Andre is selling short his rivalry with Pete. Both in terms of quality and quantity, it's still better than the Roger vs. Rafa battle, and that's true even if we focus exclusively on the Grand Slam finals. Sampras dominated Agassi in major finals, and Nadal is almost as dominant over Federer in those, presently holding a 5-2 edge. And of those seven clashes, only three were on Nadal's preferred surface (he also had a win over Federer in the 2005 French Open semis).
Say what you will about who ranks where on the all-time honor roll, or who is—or isn't—the greatest player ever. When you narrow the inquiry to the rivalries in which these four exceptional players were engaged, Pete vs. Andre is still the more competitive model.
!Courier Never too old for a one-night stand
It seems that Jim Courier's brainchild, the ATP Champions Tour (for retired players), is getting smaller, just as we all do when we approach old age. When the tour resumes this fall, it will feature a streamlined format, with just four players going at it in a one-night stand featuring a "semifinal" followed by the final, presumably with some sort of entertaining respite between the three matches (Marat Safin reading from Osip Mandelstam, or perhaps Boris Becker, juggling?).
I like this idea. The problem with a single-elimination draw of any size is, frankly, that you need to employ too many players in whom most spectators have little interest, and they always seem to be the ones who have retained their powers. That's always been the hurdle for what nobody likes to admit but everyone knows is really a "senior's tour." Paul Haarhuis beats Pat Cash, who beat John McEnroe, in some final. Whoop-dee-doo!
With just four players, you can offer McEnroe, Courier, Stefan Edberg and Becker. Who wouldn't bite on that? Apparently, many North American cities did; the tour has locked up 12 dates for the fall.
Maybe that HGH is overrated...
Wayne Odesnik, whose "suspension" has been famously "unsuspended," returned to action this week, feeling contrite and humbled. Unranked following a year in which he was prohibited from playing for getting caught with eight vials of the banned, performance-enhancing substance, Human Growth Hormone, Odesnik is starting from scratch in the pre-qualifying for a $10,000 Futures event. That is, he's trying to climb the ladder leading to the lowest rung on the pro circuit.
Although the International Tennis Federation has been cryptically silent (with good reason) on the details of Odesnik's release from suspension, the general feeling—and in many quarters, hope—is that he spilled the beans on whatever level of the doping culture he'd been exposed to. Will there be a bombshell revelation forthcoming? Perhaps. It isn't right to speculate about the case with absolutely no evidence, but if Odesnik was merely acting as what the illicit drug crowd calls a "mule" (transporting drugs for others), this could be an important case. One thing seems certain; Odesnik could not have been released merely because he fessed up; it would be like getting off on a murder one rap because you admitted it.
Meanwhile, Odesnik (who's presumably clean) won two matches in pre-qualifying with the loss of just four games. Maybe you didn't need that stuff in the first place, Wayne. But I still suggest that if you get anywhere near the pro tour, change in the car or the restroom. I don't think the locker room is going to seem a very warm and friendly place.
!DokicJelena Dokic tracker: First update of 2011
Has there ever been more star-crossed and ill-fated player than Jelena Dokic? Or perhaps bone-headed is a better description, although we all know that with a dad like cell-phone flinging, hard-drinking, lying-down-in-traffic Damir Dokic, life could never have been easy.
If you think the Jennifer Capriati saga was sad, just consider Dokic's case. She once was the best junior tennis player on the planet (singles and doubles; she paired with Kim Clijsters to win the junior Roland Garros doubles title), she reached No. 4 in the world, recorded one of the most shocking upsets of Open era history (ranked No. 129, she upset defending champion Martina Hingis at Wimbledon in the first round, two-and-oh-no!) Along the trail, she also had wins over everyone who is anyone in tennis, including Caroline Wozniacki (whom she beat in the course of what must have been comeback No. 17, or was it 18?).
The collapse was as rapid as Dokic's rise, which is saying a lot for a girl who jumped nearly 300 ranking positions in 1999 to finish No. 43 in the world. It would take an effort worthy of Tolstoy to record the ups and mostly downs that were to follow, all of which began soon after Damir decided to move the family back to Serbia at the end of 2000, abandoning the nation that gave them refuge (and plenty of developmental support) during the bad years in the Balkans.
Her most amusing if not greatest accomplishment has to have been teaming with Mark "Scud" Philippoussis to win the Hopman Cup for the host nation—it's still Australia's only win in the mixed-gender event. The triumph represents a partnership of two of the most out-to-lunch players of the Open era, yet these flamboyant talent-wasters managed to bring home the bacon for Oz.
Dokic also issued one of the nastiest quotes ever uttered on the WTA Tour after she lost in three sets to Rita Kuti-Kis of Hungary in the first round of the Australian Open of 2000. Dokic said, "I lost to a player who has never been a player and, I guess, never will be a player." Meooowwww!
Anyway, Dokic is back again. Since she finished 2003 ranked No. 15, she plummeted as low as No. 621 and is presently well outside the Top 125. Andrea Petkovic blasted Dokic in Brisbane the other day, 6-0, 6-1, in just 46 minutes. Dokic apparently injured her wrist in practice, and told the AP after the loss: "I mis-hit a ball (in practice) and it was very swollen afterwards..."
I understand that they've iced down the ball and are sending it for an MRI.
That's all for today, folks. I only ran 421 words over...